Re: What's a lot of connections?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: karim(dot)nassar(at)acm(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What's a lot of connections?
Date: 2005-07-15 14:16:16
Message-ID: 11126.1121436976@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org> writes:
> On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 00:00 -0700, Karim Nassar wrote:
>> I am working on a system that uses postgresql 7.4.2 (can't change that
>> until 8.1 goes stable). Just figured out that there are about 285,000
>> connections created over about 11 hours every day. That averages out to
>> about 7.2 connections per second.
>>
>> Is that a lot? I've never seen that many.

> I see about 8 million connections per full day. Connecting to postgres
> is cheap.

It's not *that* cheap. I think you'd get materially better performance
if you managed to pool your connections a bit. By the time a backend
has started, initialized itself, joined a database, and populated its
internal caches with enough catalog entries to get useful work done,
you've got a fair number of cycles invested in it. Dropping the backend
after only one or two queries is just not going to be efficient.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dan Harris 2005-07-15 15:09:37 Re: slow joining very large table to smaller ones
Previous Message Chris Mair 2005-07-15 09:17:11 Re: PostgresSQL vs. Firebird